ADJ16243827 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Petition for removal denied; petition for disqualification dismissed.

Petition for removal of the Order Denying Petition for Change of Venue and petition for disqualification of the WCJ filed by applicant.

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 set forth sufficient facts under the legal standards to establish grounds for removal or disqualification, and the petitioner did not demonstrate irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

From the decision · page 3To the extent the petition contends that the WCJ should be disqualified, 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 facts that decided it

The rules the panel named

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

Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and requires showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and inadequacy of reconsideration as a remedy.

The petition did not meet the criteria for removal as it failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy.

From the decision · page 2Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) 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.) Also, the petitioner must 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, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner. Accordingly, we will deny the petition to the extent it seeks removal.

Labor Code section 5311; Code of Civil Procedure section 641; WCAB Rule 10960

A party may seek to disqualify a WCJ under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641 on grounds including bias or fixed opinion.

The petition failed to set forth detailed facts under penalty of perjury to establish disqualification grounds.

From the decision · page 3To the extent the petition contends that the WCJ should be disqualified, 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)).

ADJ16243827 · April 14, 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