ADJ10534411 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for disqualification granted; assigned WCJ disqualified and case returned for reassignment to a different WCJ.

Applicant filed a petition for disqualification of the assigned WCJ based on alleged bias and unfair conduct at hearings on January 13, 2025 and March 3, 2025.

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 / removalApplicant prevailed

The Board found an appearance of bias sufficient to warrant disqualification, despite no actual bias being proven, based on the WCJ's conduct and statements during hearings.

From the decision · page 6While the WCJ may not have "formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the action" (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(f)) or has demonstrated "[t]he existence of a state of mind... evincing enmity against or bias toward either party" (Code Civ. Proc., § 641(g)), we conclude that there is an appearance of bias sufficient to warrant disqualification.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

WCJ's statements and conduct during hearings, including tone and comments about case duration, raised appearance of bias.

From the decision · page 6With respect to Item 3, in the Report, the WCJ admitted that he advised applicant the case would go forward regardless of whether applicant had an attorney. The WCJ noted, "this case had been dragging on for nearly 8 years and the issues need to be tried and decided." (Report, p. 7, emphasis added.) The choice of wording used by the WCJ to characterize the case as "dragging on," although perhaps not intended, can give rise to questions of whether the WCJ finds the length of the dispute unreasonable, and, thus, creates an appearance of bias. While we recognize the case has been protracted, such a response fails to consider that contested substantive issues remained between the parties, namely whether applicant had an industrial hip injury.

treatment coursefavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's pro per status and lack of legal expertise were not adequately considered by WCJ, contributing to appearance of bias.

From the decision · page 6Regarding Items 4, 5, and 6 related to applicant's Petition for Penalties, the WCJ appeared to take issue with applicant's word choice, advising applicant what words he should avoid in future writings, without evidence he acknowledged or considered the context in which those words were written. Notably, as clarified by applicant, he "...dedicated my life to promoting peace, and this unfounded accusation has deeply affected me emotionally. I don't even harm mosquitoes, God's magnificent creations. If my statement is carefully examined, it is clear that my intent was to highlight the consequences of bad-faith business practices by insurance companies. Such practices lead to innocent people losing their lives and leave injured or ill individuals defenseless against a legal system dominated by corporate attorneys." (Petition for Disqualification, p. 2, Item 5.) As noted above, an applicant proceeding pro per does not possess the expertise of a trained attorney in drafting legal petitions, and the WC's interactions with applicant call into question whether the WCJ adequately accounted for applicant's situation as an unpresented individual, even if unintentional, giving rise to an appearance of bias, even if no actual bias is present.

ADJ10534411 · July 1, 2025

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