What the panel ordered
Petition for Disqualification denied
Petition for Disqualification filed and denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
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.
The WCJ's opinion was not a fixed one and was based on evidence and law, so disqualification was not warranted.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the Report of 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.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ expressed an opinion prior to decision but it was not fixed and could be changed upon evidence and argument.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact showed that the WCJ's opinion did not warrant disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f).
From the decision · page 1We observe that 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. I.A.C. (Thomas) (1940)
The WCJ's opinion was based on evidence before the WCJ and the law as applied to that evidence.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This fact supported that the WCJ's opinion was proper and did not require disqualification.
From the decision · page 238 Cal.App.2d 75, 79-80 [5 Cal.Comp.Cases 61].)1 Moreover, 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 [them], and when the evidence is in conflict, to resolve that conflict in favor of the party whose evidence outweighs that of the opposing party."].)
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5311
Labor Code section 5311
Provides grounds for disqualification of a WCJ
From the decision · page 1Labor 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)).
Code of Civil Procedure section 641
Code of Civil Procedure section 641
Specifies grounds for disqualification including bias or fixed opinion
From the decision · page 1Labor 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 same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.