SIMILARCASE

Loading

Sign in Sign up Try a case →

California WCABPanel decision

ADJ15605011 · September 2, 2025

Petition for Disqualification denied on the merits by the Appeals Board panel adopting the WCJ's report

Issues decided: 1
Medical opinions weighed: 0
Authorities named: 1
District office: Oakland

What the panel ordered

Petition for Disqualification denied on the merits by the Appeals Board panel adopting the WCJ's report

Petition for Disqualification filed by applicant following an Expedited Hearing, reviewed by WCJ and Appeals Board panel

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 / removalDefendant prevailed

The petition failed to establish facts constituting grounds for disqualification and the WCJ's opinion was not fixed or biased.

From the decision · page 1Applicant, in pro per, filed a Petition for Disqualification on May 3, 2023 following an Expedited Hearing on April 29, 2025. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification issued by 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 on the merits. If we were not denying applicant's petition on the merits, we would have dismissed it on procedural grounds as discussed below.

The facts that decided it

Private workspace

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

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

ADJ15605011 — California WCAB decision · SimilarCase

Applicant failed to provide detailed facts establishing grounds for disqualification as required by WCAB Rule 10960.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Without specific facts, there was no issue of fact to determine disqualification.

From the decision · page 2recognized 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.)

The WCJ expressed opinions based on evidence and law, not fixed bias, and remained impartial.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This supported denial of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f).

From the decision · page 2Furthermore, even if detailed and verified allegations of fact have been made, it is settled law that a WCJ is not subject to disqualification under 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].)1 Additionally, even if the WCJ expresses an unqualified opinion on the merits, the WCJ is not subject to disqualification under 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." (Id.; 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."].)