ADJ20167209 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

Denied petitions for removal and disqualification of the WCJ

Petitions for removal and disqualification of the WCJ filed by applicant

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 Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's conduct and no basis for disqualification under the applicable legal standards, thus denying the petitions.

From the decision · page 1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the "Order Vacating and Setting Aside Minutes of Hearing and Notice of Mandatory Settlement Conference" issued on April 29, 2026, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Applicant has also filed a petition to disqualify the WCJ.

The facts that decided it

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

The WCJ's Report analysis found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's conduct and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

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, granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is not an adequate remedy.

The Appeals Board applied this standard and found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's conduct, denying removal.

From the decision · page 1Removal 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.,

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

Grounds for disqualification of a WCJ include forming or expressing an unqualified opinion on the merits or demonstrating bias or enmity toward a party, as specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 641.

The Appeals Board applied these grounds and found no basis for disqualification, denying the petition.

From the decision · page 2Labor Code1 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. (§ 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)).

ADJ20167209 · June 25, 2026

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