What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed as successive and Petition for Disqualification denied.
Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration on April 2, 2024, refiled on April 15, 2024, which was reviewed along with defendant's Answer and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold January 19, 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 petition was dismissed as successive because the applicant failed to show new aggrievement and the disqualification request was denied for lack of factual basis under the applicable legal standards.
From the decision · page 1Applicant, in pro per, filed a Petition for Reconsideration on April 2, 2024 and appears to have refiled the petition on April 15, 2024. We have reviewed the Petition for Reconsideration, defendant's Answer, and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. Based on our review of the record, we will dismiss the petition as successive. We will also deny it to the extent it seeks to disqualify the WCJ.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Applicant filed multiple petitions for reconsideration on the same issues without new aggrievement.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This justified dismissal of the successive petition for reconsideration under established case law.
From the decision · page 1Applicant, in pro per, filed a Petition for Reconsideration on April 2, 2024 and appears to have refiled the petition on April 15, 2024. We have reviewed the Petition for Reconsideration, defendant's Answer, and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. Based on our review of the record, we will dismiss the petition as successive. We will also deny it to the extent it seeks to disqualify the WCJ.
The petition for disqualification did not include specific factual allegations under penalty of perjury as required by law.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This led to denial of the disqualification request under Labor Code section 5311 and related rules.
From the decision · page 2To the extent applicant requests disqualification of the WCJ, we deny it. Labor 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)).
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604, 611
A party cannot file a successive petition for reconsideration unless newly aggrieved.
Applied to dismiss the successive petition for reconsideration.
From the decision · page 1It is well settled that where a party fails to prevail on a petition for reconsideration, the Appeals Board will not entertain a successive petition by that party unless the party is newly aggrieved. (Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 604, 611 [8 Cal.Comp.Cases 177]; Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 155, 159 [36 Cal.Comp.Cases 382]; Crowe Glass Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com. (Graham) (1927) 84 Cal.App. 287, 293-295 [14 IAC 221].). As stated in our en banc opinion in Navarro v. A & A Framing (2002) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 296, 299:
Labor Code section 5311; Code of Civil Procedure section 641; WCAB Rule 10960
Grounds for disqualification of a WCJ include forming an unqualified opinion or bias against a party, requiring specific factual allegations under penalty of perjury.
Applied to deny the petition for disqualification due to lack of factual basis.
From the decision · page 2To the extent applicant requests disqualification of the WCJ, we deny it. Labor 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)).
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.