What the panel ordered
Petition for Disqualification dismissed as untimely and insufficient on the merits
Petition for Disqualification filed by applicant to disqualify the WCJ
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold May 15, 2023.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
Petition was untimely and did not set forth sufficient facts to establish disqualification.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will dismiss the Petition for Disqualification.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition for Disqualification was filed on February 13, 2024, more than 10 days after the last trial date of January 22, 2024.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This made the petition untimely under WCAB Rule 10960, leading to dismissal.
From the decision · page 1Here, applicant's petition was filed on February 13, 2024, over 10 days from the last trial date of January 22, 2024 upon which applicant complains.
Petition did not set forth facts declared under penalty of perjury sufficient to establish disqualification.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of sufficient factual basis led to dismissal on the merits.
From the decision · page 1Had the petition been timely filed, however, as noted by the WCJ in her report, the petition does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
WCAB Rule 10960
Petition for Disqualification must be filed within 10 days after grounds are known or notice of hearing is served.
Petition was filed more than 10 days after the last trial date, thus untimely.
From the decision · page 1WCAB Rule 10960 provides that when the WCJ and "the grounds for disqualification" are known, a petition for disqualification "shall be filed not more than 10 days after service of notice of hearing or after grounds for disqualification are known."
Labor Code section 5311, Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and (g)
Disqualification requires sufficient facts declared under penalty of perjury.
Petition did not set forth sufficient facts to establish disqualification.
From the decision · page 1Had the petition been timely filed, however, as noted by the WCJ in her report, the petition does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g).
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.