ADJ970112 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for Reconsideration dismissed; Petition for Disqualification denied.

Petition for Reconsideration and Petition for Disqualification filed by Applicant, seeking review of June 22, 2021 Joint Findings of Fact and Orders by WCJ.

Read the official decision →

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 petition did not set forth sufficient facts under penalty of perjury to establish grounds for disqualification and was untimely.

From the decision · page 4Here, the petition for disqualification 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). Accordingly, the petition will be denied.

Reconsideration / removalDefendant prevailed

The petition failed to state grounds for reconsideration or cite specific record evidence, making it subject to dismissal.

The facts that decided it

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

Petition for Reconsideration failed to state grounds or cite specific record evidence.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This failure made the petition subject to dismissal under Labor Code section 5902 and WCAB Rules.

From the decision · page 2In accordance with section 5902 and WCAB Rules 10945 and 10972, the Appeals Board may dismiss or deny a petition for reconsideration if it is skeletal (e.g., Cal. Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Tardiff) (2004) 69 Cal.Comp.Cases 104 (writ den.); Hall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 49 Cal.Comp.Cases 253 (writ den.); Green v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 45 Cal.Comp.Cases 564 (writ den.)); if it fails to fairly state all of the material evidence, including that not favorable to it (e.g., Addecco Employment Services v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rios) (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 1331 (writ den.); City of Torrance v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Moore) (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 948 (writ den.); or if it fails to specifically discuss the particular portion(s) of the record that support the petitioner's contentions (e.g., Moore, supra, 67 Cal.Comp.Cases at p. 948; Shelton v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1995) 60 Cal.Comp.Cases 70 (writ den.).) The petition filed herein fails to state grounds upon which reconsideration is sought or to cite with specificity to the record. Therefore it is subject to dismissal.

Petition for Disqualification did not include detailed, verified facts establishing bias or prejudice under penalty of perjury.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Without such facts, the petition could not meet the legal standard for disqualification and was denied.

From the decision · page 4Here, the petition for disqualification 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). Accordingly, the petition will be denied.

ADJ970112 · September 2, 2021

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