What the panel ordered
Petition for Disqualification denied; peremptory challenge from 12/6/21 still effective; case to be set before a different WCJ
Petition for Disqualification filed by applicant's attorney on March 24, 2023, treated as Petition for Disqualification of the WCJ; prior peremptory challenge by applicant on December 6, 2021, still effective
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 denied because the prior peremptory challenge was still effective and the petition did not present sufficient objective evidence of bias to warrant disqualification.
From the decision · page 1On March 24, 2023, applicant's attorney filed a Declaration for Peremptory Challenge. To the extent that it sought to petition for disqualification of the WCJ, we will treat the pleading as a Petition for Disqualification. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the report 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 report, which we adopt and incorporate, we will deny the Petition for Disqualification. As noted by the WCJ in the Report, the peremptory challenge made by applicant on December 6, 2021 is still effective. Upon this matter's return, the presiding judge should set this matter before a different WCJ.