Joinder of Parties. 8 CCR § 10382

What panels did with this rule

Released decisions that named § 10382, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.

• ADJ16659537 · 2026-03-13 · Los Angeles District Office8 CCR § 10382

  Determinative passage · p.8It is clear the order of consolidation was an interim order of limited scope for the sole purpose of discovery. Once Great Northern was dismissed, the purpose of the order of consolidation was no longer present. The order of consolidation by its very terms acknowledged "[f]urther consolidation will be determined by the trial judge assigned to these cases." As there were no further orders of consolidation these cases remained consolidated solely for discovery purposes, and after Great Northern was dismissed, the foundation for consolidation no longer existed.

  The order of consolidation was for discovery purposes only and was rescinded after dismissal of the defendant, as further consolidation was not appropriate.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ19245370 · 2025-03-11 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10382

  Determinative passage · p.5part, that: "A party shall not be joined until 10 days after service of either a petition for joinder by a party or a notice of intention to order joinder issued by a workers' compensation judge, unless the party to be joined waives its right to this notice period." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10382, (emphasis added).)

  The WCAB referenced this rule in discussing the procedural requirements for joinder.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ121643 · 2024-04-16 · Long Beach District Office8 CCR § 10382

  Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION WCAB Rule 10382 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10382) states in pertinent part:

  The WCJ issued the Order of Joinder without allowing the 10-day objection period to expire, violating this rule.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ12924233 · 2023-10-17 · Santa Ana District Office8 CCR § 10382

  Determinative passage · p.4Turning to the issue of joinder, we note that the joinder of parties pursuant to WCAB Rule 103822 is permissive rather than mandatory, as evidenced by the word "may." It serves judicial economy to join all parties "whose presence is necessary for the full adjudication of the case," and such joinder should be accomplished to the extent that it is possible. However, despite the passage of a significant amount of time and effort and several hearings, such joinder has not occurred in these cases. The WCJ did not cite nor did we find any authority for the notion that applicant is the

  Joinder serves judicial economy and should be accomplished to the extent possible, but is not mandatory.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ10504110 · 2023-09-25 · Santa Ana District Office8 CCR § 10382

  Determinative passage · p.2Accordingly, any decision to rejoin parties previously dismissed should be based upon an adequate record after providing the parties an opportunity to be heard, in the same manner as any other order touching on the parties' due process rights. (Lab. Code § 5313; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10382; Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc), citing Evans v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1968) 68 Cal.2d 753, 755 [33 Cal.Comp.Cases 350, 351].)

  Applied to require a record and opportunity to be heard before joining a previously dismissed party.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ number not stated · 2023-05-05 · Long Beach District Office8 CCR § 10382

  Determinative passage · p.6had no legal effect from the beginning. WCAB Rule 10382 states in pertinent part:

  The joinder order was issued 9 days after service of the joinder petition, violating the 10-day notice requirement and rendering the order void ab initio.