What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
No trial judge had been assigned to the case.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The petition was dismissed as premature because the petitioner sought disqualification of a judge who was not assigned to trial.
From the decision · page 3By untimely, verified petition filed on August 30, 2024, applicant seeks an action "to
appoint a new judge" in this case, which arises out of an admitted back injury and was resolved in
2002 by a stipulated award of permanent disability indemnity and further medical
treatment1 Since that time, applicant, who is in propria persona, has attempted on multiple
occasions to bring about a monetary settlement of her remaining right to medical care, and has
been unsuccessful in persuading defendant to enter into such an agreement. I have been the
judge assigned hearings (numbering eleven) since 2018. No trial has ever been scheduled, and no
judge assigned for trial. I have determined to consider the instant petition one for
disqualification. I will recommend that it be dismissed as both premature (as I have not been
assigned as the trial judge) and as tardy (as no action has been taken within ten days of the
filing of the petition).
The petition was not filed within ten days of any action.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The petition was dismissed as untimely under the applicable rules requiring timely filing.
From the decision · page 3By untimely, verified petition filed on August 30, 2024, applicant seeks an action "to
appoint a new judge" in this case, which arises out of an admitted back injury and was resolved in
2002 by a stipulated award of permanent disability indemnity and further medical
treatment1 Since that time, applicant, who is in propria persona, has attempted on multiple
occasions to bring about a monetary settlement of her remaining right to medical care, and has
been unsuccessful in persuading defendant to enter into such an agreement. I have been the
judge assigned hearings (numbering eleven) since 2018. No trial has ever been scheduled, and no
judge assigned for trial. I have determined to consider the instant petition one for
disqualification. I will recommend that it be dismissed as both premature (as I have not been
assigned as the trial judge) and as tardy (as no action has been taken within ten days of the
filing of the petition).
The WCJ has no bias or disqualifying interest in the case.
Favours Defendant prevailed
The WCJ's impartiality negated grounds for disqualification.
From the decision · page 3Disqualification is governed by Cal. Code Regulations, Title 8, section 10960, authorized
by Labor Code section 5311, which allows any party to object to the assignment of a given
workers' compensation judge for any of the reasons enumerated in Code of Civil Procedure
section 641. There are seven such reasons. Of those, the first six simply do not apply, nor
would appear that they could: I do not lack any of the qualifications of a juror; I have no
consanguinity or affinity with any of the parties to this matter; I have no guardianship (etc.) or
familial or partnership (etc.) relationship with any party; I have never served as a juror or witness
in any trial between these parties; I have no interest in the outcome of the case; and I have formed
no opinions on its merits. I simply have no knowledge of it, other than what is recited above from
the pleadings. With respect to the last ground for disqualification, this concerns the "existence of
a state of mind in the potential referee evincing enmity or bias toward either party." I have none,
and I do not believe that a reasonable person could perceive such a state of mind, so under other
circumstances I would not recommend that the matter be transferred to another judge, and I would
not recommend that I be disqualified were the petition timely and such action be permitted.