ADJ10254909 — California WCAB decision

ADJ10254909 · October 21, 2025

Dismissed petitions for disqualification; granted petition for removal of the March 27, 2024 order compelling applicant's attendance at evaluation; rescinded the March 27, 2024 order; returned matter to trial level for further proceedings.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Van Nuys

What the panel ordered

Applicant filed petitions for disqualification and removal of the WCJ; the WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Removal recommending denial of disqualification.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold July 1, 2021.

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

Applicant failed to provide a substantive affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury and did not detail grounds for disqualification as required by WCAB Rule 10960 and relevant law.

From the decision · page 2We have considered the allegations of the May 14, 2024 Petitions for Removal and Disqualification, the Answer, and the contents of the WCJ's Report. Based on our review of the record we will dismiss the May 14, 2024 Petition for Disqualification as applicant failed to provide any substantive affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, nor detail any grounds for disqualification under the rule. We will grant applicant's Petition for Removal from the March 27, 2024 order compelling applicant's attendance at evaluation and as our Decision After Removal, we will rescind the March 27, 2024 order and return this matter to the trial level to create a record.

The facts that decided it

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

Applicant did not provide any substantive affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury nor detailed grounds for disqualification as required by WCAB Rule 10960.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This failure meant there was no factual basis to support disqualification, leading to dismissal of the petitions for disqualification.

From the decision · page 4Here, and based upon the analysis contained in the WCJ's Report we dismiss the Petition for Disqualification. Applicant has not provided any substantive affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, nor has applicant detailed any grounds for disqualification under the rule.

The WCJ issued an order compelling applicant's attendance at evaluation without creating a record or explaining the need, violating due process rights.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This procedural defect constituted irreparable harm, justifying removal of the order and rescission by the Appeals Board.

From the decision · page 42. 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]; 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 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, the WCJ ordered applicant to appear at an evaluation. The trial judge issued this order without creating a record or explaining the need for the order and thus, the order violates the parties' right to due process, which constitutes irreparable harm. Thus, removal is proper in this case. 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.

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code section 5311; Code of Civil Procedure section 641; WCAB Rule 10960

A party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 641, supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating detailed facts establishing grounds for disqualification.

Applicant failed to provide the required affidavit or declaration and detailed grounds, thus disqualification petition was dismissed.

From the decision · page 21. Disqualification To the extent that the May 14, 2024 petition seeks disqualification, Labor Code3 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)). 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.

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

Removal of a WCJ is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted, and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.

The WCJ's order compelling attendance at evaluation was issued without creating a record or explaining the need, violating due process and causing irreparable harm, thus removal was proper.

From the decision · page 42. 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]; 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 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, the WCJ ordered applicant to appear at an evaluation. The trial judge issued this order without creating a record or explaining the need for the order and thus, the order violates the parties' right to due process, which constitutes irreparable harm. Thus, removal is proper in this case. 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.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Defendant prevailed

Applicant failed to provide any substantive affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, nor detail any grounds for disqualification under the rule.