Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
WCAB Rule 10960
Petition for disqualification must include detailed facts and be timely filed within 10 days after grounds are known.
Petition was untimely and lacked sufficient factual detail to establish disqualification.
From the decision · page 4WCAB Rule 10960 provides that when the WCJ and "the grounds for disqualification" are
known, a petition for disqualification "shall be filed not more than 10 days after service of notice
of hearing or after grounds for disqualification are known." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f)
A WCJ is not subject to disqualification if the opinion expressed is not fixed and can be changed upon further evidence and argument.
Petition failed to show fixed opinion warranting disqualification.
From the decision · page 3Furthermore, even if detailed and verified allegations of fact have been made, it is settled
law that a WCJ is not subject to disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) if,
prior to rendering a decision, the WCJ expresses an opinion regarding a legal or factual issue but
the petitioner fails to show that this opinion is a fixed one that could not be changed upon the
production of evidence and the presentation of arguments at or after further hearing. (Taylor v.
Industrial Acc. Com. (Thomas) (1940) 38 Cal.App.2d 75, 79-80 [5 Cal.Comp.Cases 61].)3
Additionally, even if the WCJ expresses an unqualified opinion on the merits, the WCJ is not
subject to disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) if that opinion is "based
upon the evidence then before [the WCJ] and upon [the WCJ's] conception of the law as applied
to such evidence." (Ibid.; cf. Kreling v. Superior Court (1944) 25 Cal.2d 305, 312 ["It is [a judge's]
duty to consider and pass upon the evidence produced before him, and when the evidence is in
conflict, to resolve that conflict in favor of the party whose evidence outweighs that of the opposing
party."].)
Mackie v. Dyer (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 395
Judicial bias requires specific factual allegations, not mere conclusions or subjective perceptions.
Petition contained only conclusions without facts, insufficient for disqualification.
From the decision · page 3stating 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
forth in the statement there is no issue of fact to be determined." (Mackie v. Dyer (1957) 154
Cal.App.2d 395, 399, italics added.) Under no circumstances may a party's unilateral and
subjective perception of bias afford a basis for disqualification. (Haas v. County of San Bernardino
(2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017, 1034; Robbins v. Sharp Healthcare (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1291,
1310-1311 (Significant Panel Decision).)