ADJ12674446 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for reconsideration dismissed; Petition for removal and disqualification granted; WCJ's May 12, 2025 Order Suspending Action rescinded; case returned to Presiding WCJ for reassignment.

Petition for reconsideration or removal of the Order Suspending Action issued by the WCJ on May 12, 2025, seeking disqualification of the WCJ for alleged bias.

Read the official decision →

This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold August 16, 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.

Reconsideration / removalApplicant prevailed

The WCJ's May 12, 2025 Order Suspending Action contained unqualified opinions on attorney fees creating an appearance of bias, warranting disqualification and removal. The order was interlocutory and not final, so reconsideration was dismissed.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks reconsideration or in the alternative removal of the "Order Suspending Action" (Order) issued on May 12, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Applicant further seeks disqualification of the WCJ.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10844

WCAB Rule 10844 regarding attorney fee determination.

Applicant argued the WCJ failed to follow this rule in determining an appropriate fee.

From the decision · page 1Applicant argues, in pertinent part, that the WCJ presumptively determined in the Order what fee amount is reasonable, which is an unqualified opinion that creates an appearance of bias warranting disqualification. Applicant further argues that the WCJ failed to follow WCAB Rule 10844 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10844) in determining an appropriate fee.

Lab. Code, 5311; Code Civ. Proc., 641

Grounds for disqualification of WCJ under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641.

The WCJ was disqualified for expressing an unqualified opinion indicating bias.

From the decision · page 5III. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 600, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155, 157, fn. 5]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 281, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133, 136, fn. 2].) 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.) A petitioner must also 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 petitioner alleges that the WCJ's Order Suspending Action contains unqualified opinions as to the adequacy of attorney's fees, which creates the appearance of bias warranting disqualification of the WCJ. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with this allegation and thus petitioner has established irreparable harm and substantial prejudice warranting removal. 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.

ADJ12674446 · July 25, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page