ADJ21618015 · September 8, 2026

The petition failed to show specific facts constituting grounds for disqualification and was untimely; the WCJ's conduct did not demonstrate disqualifying bias or fixed opinion.

From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal and a petition for reconsideration from the April 28, 2026 Minutes of Hearing, which ordered applicant’s matter continued to a mandatory settlement conference. Applicant argues that a certified interpreter was not present at the hearing, that his right to due process was violated, and that his matter should not have been continued amongst other arguments. Applicant also seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ is not impartial and denied applicant’s right to due process. We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification (Disqualification Report) recommending that we deny disqualification. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal (Removal Report) recommending that we deny removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petitions for Disqualification, Removal, and Reconsideration and the contents of the WCJ’s Reports. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits contained in the WCJ’s Reports, we will deny

The continuance order was not a final order, and the petition for reconsideration was filed beyond the 25-day limit; therefore, the petition was dismissed as untimely and non-jurisdictional.

From the decision · page 7(1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008, 1011]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73, 75-76].) Here, the order issued by the WCJ was a continuance, which is not a final order. Furthermore, applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration was filed well beyond 25 days from the issuance of the April 2026 minutes. Thus, to the extent that applicant seeks reconsideration, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

The petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the continuance order, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate; thus removal was denied.

From the decision · page 4Kleemann 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 substantial 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 WCJ ordered that this matter proceed to a mandatory settlement conference, which is required prior to setting any of the issues in applicant’s case for trial. No trial on the merits has occurred in this proceeding. Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp.

Applicant did not file a timely petition for reconsideration within 25 days of a final order.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This jurisdictional failure required dismissal of the petition for reconsideration.

From the decision · page 7(1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008, 1011]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73, 75-76].) Here, the order issued by the WCJ was a continuance, which is not a final order. Furthermore, applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration was filed well beyond 25 days from the issuance of the April 2026 minutes. Thus, to the extent that applicant seeks reconsideration, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Applicant's petition for disqualification lacked specific factual allegations of bias or prejudice against the WCJ.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Without specific facts, the petition could not establish grounds for disqualification.

From the decision · page 2one 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)). Under 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.

Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the continuance order to justify removal.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This failure meant removal was not warranted.

From the decision · page 4Kleemann 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 substantial 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 WCJ ordered that this matter proceed to a mandatory settlement conference, which is required prior to setting any of the issues in applicant’s case for trial. No trial on the merits has occurred in this proceeding. Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp.

Labor Code section 5311; Code of Civil Procedure section 641

Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641 govern grounds for disqualification of a WCJ.

Petition must be supported by detailed facts and timely filed; mere conclusions or subjective perceptions are insufficient.

From the decision · page 2DISQUALIFICATION Labor Code 2 section 5311 provides that a party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon any 1F

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006); Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005)

Removal is granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm is shown and reconsideration is inadequate.

Petitioner failed to meet this burden; removal denied.

From the decision · page 4Kleemann 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 substantial 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 WCJ ordered that this matter proceed to a mandatory settlement conference, which is required prior to setting any of the issues in applicant’s case for trial. No trial on the merits has occurred in this proceeding. Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp.

Labor Code sections 5900, 5903, 5909; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10507(a)(1), 10508, 10845(a), 10392(a)

Petitions for reconsideration must be timely filed within 25 days of a final order; untimely petitions are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The continuance order was not final; petition was filed late; petition dismissed.

From the decision · page 7(1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1171, 1182; Scott v Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 979, 984 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1008, 1011]; U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Hinojoza) (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 545, 549 [27 Cal.Comp.Cases 73, 75-76].) Here, the order issued by the WCJ was a continuance, which is not a final order. Furthermore, applicant’s Petition for Reconsideration was filed well beyond 25 days from the issuance of the April 2026 minutes. Thus, to the extent that applicant seeks reconsideration, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Applicant's unilateral and subjective perception of bias was insufficient to establish disqualification grounds.

From the decision · page 3How could it be otherwise? We will not hold that every statement a judge makes to explain his or her reasons for ruling against a party constitutes evidence of judicial bias.”].) Under no circumstances may a party’s unilateral and subjective perception of bias afford a basis for disqualification. (Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017, 1034; Robbins v. Sharp Healthcare (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1291, 1310–1311 (Significant Panel Decision).) Here, and based upon the analysis contained in the WCJ’s Report we deny the Petition for Disqualification. REMOVAL Removal 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];