What the panel ordered
Petitions for Removal and Disqualification denied by the Appeals Board.
Petitions for Removal and Disqualification filed by applicant were considered by the Appeals Board after review of the WCJ reports and record.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold May 14, 2021.
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.
Petition for Disqualification was untimely and lacked required affidavit or declaration; no bias or ex parte communication found by WCJ or Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 5accordance with Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.2 In addition, if petitioner alleges the bias occurred at the September 29, 2021 trial date, then this present petition should have been filed no later than October 14, 2021. Instead, the petition was not filed until December 8, 2021. As such, the filing of the Petition for Disqualification on December 8, 2021, was untimely and the petition should be denied accordingly.
Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied and failed to show reconsideration would be inadequate remedy.
From the decision · page 1Applicant, in pro per, filed a Petition for Removal on October 4, 2021, Amended Petition for Removal on October 21, 2021, and a Petition for Disqualification on December 8, 2021. We have considered the allegations of the Petitions for Removal and the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the Reports of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny removal. In addition, we will deny the Petition for Disqualification for the reasons stated by the WCJ in the December 10, 2021 Report, which we adopt and incorporate.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure meant removal was not warranted as an extraordinary remedy.
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., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, we are not persuaded that substantial
Petition for Disqualification was filed untimely and without required affidavit or declaration.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Untimeliness and lack of required documentation led to denial of disqualification petition.
From the decision · page 5accordance with Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.2 In addition, if petitioner alleges the bias occurred at the September 29, 2021 trial date, then this present petition should have been filed no later than October 14, 2021. Instead, the petition was not filed until December 8, 2021. As such, the filing of the Petition for Disqualification on December 8, 2021, was untimely and the petition should be denied accordingly.
No evidence of bias or ex parte communication by the WCJ was found.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Lack of bias or improper communication supported denial of disqualification petition.
From the decision · page 6In the matter at hand, this WCJ has demonstrated neither bias, nor the appearance of bias, toward petitioner whatsoever and his claims to the contrary are without merit.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, former 10843(a), now 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 rarely exercised by the Appeals Board and requires showing substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration is inadequate.
The Appeals Board denied removal because petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration would be adequate remedy.
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., tit. 8, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020); 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, former § 10843(a), now § 10955(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2020).) Here, we are not persuaded that substantial
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10940(a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10960; Labor Code 123.6(a); Code of Civil Procedure 641
Petition for Disqualification must be timely filed within 10 days after grounds are known and include affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating facts for disqualification.
The petition was untimely and lacked required affidavit or declaration; no bias or ex parte communication found.
From the decision · page 5accordance with Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.2 In addition, if petitioner alleges the bias occurred at the September 29, 2021 trial date, then this present petition should have been filed no later than October 14, 2021. Instead, the petition was not filed until December 8, 2021. As such, the filing of the Petition for Disqualification on December 8, 2021, was untimely and the petition should be denied accordingly.
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.