ADJ11025217 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petitions for Disqualification are denied.

Petitions for Disqualification filed by applicant's attorney were considered and denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board panel after review of the WCJ's reports.

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 petitions did not set forth sufficient facts under penalty of perjury to establish grounds for disqualification, and no evidence of bias was found. The WCJ's expression of intention to impose sanctions was not a fixed opinion and was based on evidence and law, not bias.

From the decision · page 1Applicant's attorney filed a Petition for Disqualification on October 11, 2022 and a second Petition for Disqualification on November 1, 2022. We have considered the allegations of the Petitions for Disqualification and the contents of the Reports of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record and for the reasons stated in the WCJ's Reports, both of which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny the Petitions for Disqualification.

The facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

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

Labor Code section 5311

Labor Code section 5311 provides grounds for disqualification of a WCJ.

The petitions were evaluated under this statute for sufficiency of grounds.

From the decision · page 1Labor Code 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. (Lab. Code, § 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)).

Code of Civil Procedure section 641

Code of Civil Procedure section 641 lists grounds for disqualification including bias or fixed opinion.

The petitions were evaluated under this statute for bias or fixed opinion.

From the decision · page 1Labor Code 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. (Lab. Code, § 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)).

WCAB Rule 10960

WCAB Rule 10960 requires petitions for disqualification to be supported by detailed verified facts.

The petitions were evaluated for compliance with this rule.

From the decision · page 1Under 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

ADJ11025217 · June 13, 2023

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

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

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page