What the panel ordered
Petition for Removal granted, Orders of February 4, 2025 rescinded; Petition for Disqualification granted, WCJ Bernal disqualified, case returned to presiding WCJ for reassignment
Petition for Removal and Petition for Disqualification filed by lien claimant Medland Medical Group against WCJ Bernal's orders and conduct
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold November 18, 2024, February 5, 2024.
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.
The Appeals Board concluded that the WCJ's actions could reasonably raise concerns of bias or unfairness, violating due process, and granted disqualification.
The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's refusal to allow electronic appearance violated due process and that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was denied.
From the decision · page 3Removal 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, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are 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 facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This denial violated lien claimant's due process rights and justified removal
WCJ Bernal treated electronic appearance as non-appearance and recommended sanctions against lien claimant
Favours Applicant prevailed
This conduct raised a reasonable appearance of bias requiring disqualification
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 4907(b)
Non-attorney representatives held to same professional standards as attorneys
Supports argument for electronic appearance rights
From the decision · page 3Labor Code section 4907(b)2 provides that non-attorney representatives are "held to the same professional standards of conduct as attorneys." Section 5700 states in pertinent part that:
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10815, 10816, 10817
Appearance means presence at hearing; electronic appearances allowed under WCAB rules
Supports electronic appearance rights
From the decision · page 4"Either party may be present at any hearing, in person, by attorney, or by any other agent..." "`Appearance' means a party or their representative's presence, pursuant to Labor Code section 5700, at any hearing." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10305(c).) WCAB Rules 10815, 10816, and 10817 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10815, 10816, 10817) allow electronic proceedings, appearances, and testimony, and there is nothing in the Labor Code or in our Rules that requires that hearings be in person.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)
Removal granted only if petitioner shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration is inadequate remedy
Applied to determine if removal should be granted
From the decision · page 3Removal 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, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are 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.
Code of Civil Procedure section 641
Grounds for disqualification include bias or appearance of bias
Applied to disqualification petition
From the decision · page 4II. 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 demonstrated "[t]he existence of a state of mind... evincing enmity against or bias toward either party." (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(g)). "Due Process is violated where there is even an appearance of bias or unfairness in administrative hearings. (citations)" (Robbins v. Sharp Healthcare, et al. (2006) 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 1291, 1302 [2006 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 314] (Robbins).) The appearance of bias may be sufficient to require disqualification. As to the appearance of bias, the objective test to be applied is whether a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to act with impartiality (Id., at p. 1307). Bias against a party's attorney may be a ground for disqualification. (Id., at p. 1306). A petition to disqualify must be verified upon oath in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record. (Cal. Code Regs., tit., tit. 8, § 10940(c).) WCAB Rule 10960 provides:
Robbins v. Sharp Healthcare (2006) 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 1291
Due process violated by appearance of bias or unfairness in administrative hearings
Supports disqualification due to appearance of bias
From the decision · page 4II. 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 demonstrated "[t]he existence of a state of mind... evincing enmity against or bias toward either party." (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(g)). "Due Process is violated where there is even an appearance of bias or unfairness in administrative hearings. (citations)" (Robbins v. Sharp Healthcare, et al. (2006) 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 1291, 1302 [2006 Cal. Wrk. Comp. LEXIS 314] (Robbins).) The appearance of bias may be sufficient to require disqualification. As to the appearance of bias, the objective test to be applied is whether a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to act with impartiality (Id., at p. 1307). Bias against a party's attorney may be a ground for disqualification. (Id., at p. 1306). A petition to disqualify must be verified upon oath in the manner required for verified pleadings in courts of record. (Cal. Code Regs., tit., tit. 8, § 10940(c).) WCAB Rule 10960 provides:
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
WCJ Bernal's refusal to allow electronic appearance and recommendation of sanctions against lien claimant and representative
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.