When they must send it
• The notice should issue prior to or on the date of the new payment and no later than the date the last payment was due in the previous schedule.
The deadline this notice puts on you
This notice does not itself start a clock against you.
Rule text
8 CCR § 9812 · 14 unspecified
Trigger: after the last payment which was made before the change
Other notices concerning changed payments shall be sent before or with the changed payment, but not later than 14 days after the last payment which was made before the change
Quoted from the statute, marked computed. The deadline table is a draft extraction — read the official code if the two disagree.
The rule behind it
8 CCR §9812(c)
The official model notice
BENEFIT NOTICE INSTRUCTION MANUAL Date [Option] SENT VIA E-MAIL TO employee’s e- mail address Employee Employer: Address Date of Injury: City_State_Zip Claim Number: (Option) Employee’s e-mail address NOTICE REGARDING INDEMNITY BENEFITS PAYMENT CHANGE INSERT CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR NAME is handling your workers' compensation claim on behalf of INSERT EMPLOYER NAME. This notice is to advise you of the status of disability benefits for your workers' compensation injury on the date shown above. Select one or more of the following as applicable: (1) We are changing the benefit rate for INSERT BENEFIT TYPE. The rate is being changed to $INSERT WEEKLY RATE beginning with the payment on DATE because INSERT REASON FOR CHANGE IN RATE. (2) We are changing the payment amount for INSERT BENEFIT TYPE. The amount is being changed to $ INSERT WEEKLY AMOUNT beginning with the payment on DATE because INSERT REASON FOR CHANGE IN AMOUNT. (3) We are changing the scheduled day of the week that we send your INSERT BENEFIT TYPE. Beginning with the payment on DATE checks will be sent every two weeks on DAY …
Published by the Division of Workers’ Compensation in the Benefit Notice Instruction Manual. Excerpt — read the full manual at the source. p.30.
Source · dir.ca.gov →When this went wrong
Decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board on this subject. Each quotes the passage it turned on and links to the official PDF.
- ADJ16635028 · 2026-06-26 · Long Beach District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Whether Sanctions Should be Imposed Against Lien Claimant and/or their Representative [t]he regulations mandate that lien claimants appear at all lien conferences, either in person or by attorney or non-attorney representative.1 The failure to appear at a hearing is sanctionable conduct.2 Sanctions are appropriate for failures to appear where a reasonable excuse is not offered or the offending party has demonstrated a pattern of such conduct.3 (Emphasis added.)
The tribunal found that Paperwork & More had notice of the hearing and failed to offer a reasonable excuse for non-appearance; sanctions were appropriate and imposed jointly and severally on Paperwork & More and Stanley B. Johnson, but not on Premier Psychological Services.
Official decision · page 7 → - ADJ118647 · 2026-06-08 · San Diego District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814defendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10Applicant did not meet her burden of showing that she should be awarded a penalty on late mileage for treatment for her neck and bilateral shoulders. She did not identify any particular mileage reimbursement request that was late. She did not indicate when they were sent to Defendant or when she received payment. Teri Thompson, program coordinator for the City of San Diego and current adjuster for Applicant's claim, credibly testified that she had issues with Applicant's mileage reimbursement requests. The issues varied but sometimes the requests were not legible, or had dates of service that were cut off, or were requesting mileage for treatment for body parts that were not industrial body parts, or were requesting mileage where the location where treatment occurred was not clear. When problems with mileage requests were noted, applicant would receive in writing why there was a problem with her mileage requests (May 22, 2025 Summary of Evidence, page 2, lines 10-22). For the reasons stated above, applicant did not meet her burden of showing that she should be awarded a penalty for late mileage reimbursement.
Applicant failed to identify any specific late mileage reimbursement request or prove entitlement to a penalty for late reimbursement.
Official decision · page 10 → - ADJ19203396 · 2026-05-29 · San Jose District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1The Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal (the Court) issued an order on October 1, 2025 denying a petition for writ of review filed by counsel for defendants, Llarena, Murdock, Lopez & Aziza, APC, in this matter, and remanded the matter to the Appeals Board for the purpose of making a supplemental award to respondent the applicant for reasonable attorney's fees for services rendered in connection with this petition. (Lab. Code, § 5801.)" (Order, October 1, 2025, emphasis added.) The Court's order was based on its finding "that there was no reasonable basis for the petition (See Lab. Code, § 5950; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1074.)" (Ibid.)
The Court found no reasonable basis for defendants' petition for writ of review and remanded for supplemental attorney's fees to applicant and her counsel, which the Board awarded as stipulated by the parties.
Official decision · page 1 → - ADJ13071035 · 2026-04-24 · San Francisco District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.63. Substantial evidence supports my finding that there was no timely payment to lien claimant, and the invoices are subject to penalties and interest pursuant to Labor Code section 4603.2.
Defendant did not timely pay multiple invoices from Casa Colina, resulting in penalties and interest under Labor Code section 4603.2. Defendant's objections on Explanation of Reviews were inaccurate or immaterial, and payments were not made despite authorization.
Official decision · page 6 →