ADJ18956084 · August 25, 2026

The WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar without creating a record or explaining the need violated due process, constituting irreparable harm, justifying removal. The petition for disqualification lacked sufficient factual basis and was denied.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ ordered applicant’s matter off calendar in error and failed to set various issues for hearing. We have received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification (Report) recommending that we deny disqualification. We have received a request from applicant to file a supplemental petition, which we grant. (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.) We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits contained in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny disqualification. However, we will treat applicant’s petition as seeking removal of the May 14, 2026, order taking the matter off calendar. We will grant the petition for removal and as our Decision After Removal we will rescind the May 14, 2026 order taking the matter off calendar and order that this matter be set for mandatory settlement conference so that the WCJ may conduct a hearing upon the parties’ various discovery petitions.

WCJ ordered matter off calendar without creating a record or explaining the need for further development of the record.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This violated the parties' right to due process and constituted irreparable harm, justifying removal of the order.

From the decision · page 5The WCJ issued this order without creating a record or explaining the need for further development of the record and thus, the order violates the parties right to due process, which constitutes irreparable harm. Thus, removal is proper in this case. Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v.

Applicant requested Dr. Schneider be appointed as QME in endocrinology due to lack of sufficient QMEs in that specialty.

Applicant argued WCJ failed to appoint Dr. Schneider as QME in endocrinology, but this did not show bias or prejudice.

From the decision · page 4On May 5, 2025, a WCJ ordered the Medical Unit to issue a panel in endocrinology. According to the parties’ pleadings, the DWC Medical Unit issued correspondence, dated August 29, 2025, stating “they were unable to assign a panel of three QMEs because of a lack of sufficient QMEs in California in the DWC Medical Unit to Endocrinology specialty.” (Defendant’s Answer to Petition for Disqualification, June 8, 2026, p. 2, lines 14-17.) Thereafter, applicant requested that Dr. Darius A. Schneider, M.D., be appointed as a QME pursuant to section 139.2(h). It does not appear that defendant has set up a QME appointment with Dr. Schneider. The matter proceeded to hearing on October 13, 2025 with the prior WCJ. 2 According to the minutes, the matter was continued to another mandatory settlement conference, and defendant was to provide applicant their completed copy of the pre-trial conference statement. However, it does not appear that the matter was ever set for the continued hearing, and it remained off calendar. On March 4, 2026, applicant filed a declaration of readiness to proceed, which essentially requested that the matter be reset for hearing on the same issues, including the endocrinology panel, a neurology panel, medical treatment authorization, temporary disability, mileage reimbursement, and a medical records dispute. On April 15, 2026, defendant filed two petitions.

Labor Code section 5311; Code of Civil Procedure section 641; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960

Petition for disqualification must be supported by detailed facts under penalty of perjury and be timely filed.

Petition for disqualification denied due to lack of sufficient factual basis and untimeliness.

From the decision · page 1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ ordered applicant’s matter off calendar in error and failed to set various issues for hearing. We have received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification (Report) recommending that we deny disqualification. We have received a request from applicant to file a supplemental petition, which we grant. (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.) We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits contained in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny disqualification. However, we will treat applicant’s petition as seeking removal of the May 14, 2026, order taking the matter off calendar. We will grant the petition for removal and as our Decision After Removal we will rescind the May 14, 2026 order taking the matter off calendar and order that this matter be set for mandatory settlement conference so that the WCJ may conduct a hearing upon the parties’ various discovery petitions.

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

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is inadequate.

Removal granted because WCJ's order off calendar violated due process and caused irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 5Removal 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, the WCJ ordered the matter off calendar for further development of the record.

WCJ ordered matter off calendar without creating a record or explaining need, violating due process rights.

From the decision · page 5The WCJ issued this order without creating a record or explaining the need for further development of the record and thus, the order violates the parties right to due process, which constitutes irreparable harm. Thus, removal is proper in this case. Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v.