ADJ1939621 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

All petitions for removal and disqualification of the WCJ are denied

Petitions for removal and disqualification of the WCJ filed by applicant

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold April 11, 2024.

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.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The petitions failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and did not meet the specific factual requirements for disqualification under the law and regulations.

From the decision · page 2substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Petitions failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This failure meant removal was not warranted under the regulatory standard for extraordinary remedy.

From the decision · page 2substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Petitions lacked specific factual allegations required for disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 641 and related regulations.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Without specific facts, there was no issue of fact to determine disqualification, leading to denial.

From the decision · page 2Under WCAB Rule 10960, proceedings to disqualify a WCJ "shall be initiated by the filing of a petition for disqualification supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating in detail facts establishing one or more of the grounds for disqualification...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960, italics added.) It has long been recognized that "[t]he allegations in a statement charging bias and prejudice of a judge must set forth specifically the facts on which the charge is predicated," that "[a] statement containing nothing but conclusions and setting forth no facts constituting a ground for disqualification may be ignored," and that "[w]here no facts are set forth in the statement there is no issue of fact to be determined." (Mackie v. Dyer (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 395, 399.)

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and requires showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted.

The Board applied this standard to deny removal petitions due to lack of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that

Labor Code 5311; Code Civ. Proc., 641

A party may seek disqualification of a WCJ under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641 for bias or prejudicial state of mind.

The Board applied these statutes to evaluate the petitions for disqualification.

From the decision · page 2Labor Code1 section 5311 provides that a party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon any one or more of the grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 641. (§ 5311; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 641.) Among the grounds for disqualification under section 641 are that the WCJ has "formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action" (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(f)) or that the WCJ has demonstrated "[t]he existence of a state of mind... evincing enmity against or bias toward either party." (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(g)).

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10960; Mackie v. Dyer (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 395; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10960

Petitions for disqualification must be supported by detailed factual allegations and be timely filed within 10 days after notice or knowledge of grounds.

The Board applied these procedural requirements to deny the petitions for disqualification due to lack of specific facts and timeliness.

From the decision · page 2Under WCAB Rule 10960, proceedings to disqualify a WCJ "shall be initiated by the filing of a petition for disqualification supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating in detail facts establishing one or more of the grounds for disqualification...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960, italics added.) It has long been recognized that "[t]he allegations in a statement charging bias and prejudice of a judge must set forth specifically the facts on which the charge is predicated," that "[a] statement containing nothing but conclusions and setting forth no facts constituting a ground for disqualification may be ignored," and that "[w]here no facts are set forth in the statement there is no issue of fact to be determined." (Mackie v. Dyer (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 395, 399.)

ADJ1939621 · October 21, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page