ADJ16563992 · August 17, 2026

The WCAB found that the WCJ proceeded to trial without applicant present, denied a virtual appearance request improperly, and showed bias and unqualified opinions, violating due process. The WCJ was disqualified and the decision rescinded to ensure a fair hearing.

From the decision · page 5Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on June 18, 2026. II. Turning to the merits, we will first consider applicant’s contention that the WCJ proceeded to trial in her absence. In our en banc decision in Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 830 (Appeals Board en banc) (Chicago Dogs), we stated that: In conducting our preliminary review, we observe that in addition to our constitutional mandate to accomplish substantial justice, the following fundamental legal principles must guide us:

Applicant requested virtual appearance and the WCJ denied it by an unsigned email not admitted as evidence, violating procedural rules.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This denial violated due process and was a key reason for disqualifying the WCJ and rescinding the decision.

From the decision · page 8The record does not include such a request by applicant. But in defendant’s March 12, 2026 letter, which we treat as a petition by defendant regarding virtual appearance and virtual testimony, defendant acknowledged receipt of such a request by applicant and asserted that it would agree to a continuance “that accommodates Applicant’s return to the United States” and that it would agree to a virtual appearance by applicant, but not to virtual testimony by applicant. If the WCJ had decided to order a virtual appearance by applicant, but not virtual testimony by applicant, the WCJ could have approved it as a stipulation and a hearing may not have been required on the issue. (See Lab. Code, § 5702 [hearing to be set when a WCJ does not approve a stipulation].) Yet, the sole action by the WCJ was to apparently instruct his secretary to send an email denying the request. Since the email is not one of the documents described in the definition of proceedings under WCAB 10803(a)(2), 3 and it is not admitted evidence, the email technically 2F

The WCJ proceeded to trial without applicant present despite her request and notice, violating due process rights.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Proceeding without applicant and denying her virtual appearance deprived her of a fair hearing, justifying disqualification and rescission.

From the decision · page 3There is no proof of service attached, and the email is not by or signed by the WCJ. On March 26, 2026, applicant failed to appear at trial. The WCJ issued the Minutes of Hearing and Notice of Intent to Submit (MOH) on April 2, 2026. He stated that: LET THE MINUTES REFLECT that we are proceeding without Applicant present. She did recently request to appear remotely, which was denied by this judge. She notified the Information and Assistance Officer that she would not be attending today’s proceeding. Applicant was aware of the proceedings, and that her request to appear remotely was denied. The trial will proceed today and the court will issue a Notice of Intent to Submit the matter at the conclusion of today’s proceedings.

The WCJ made statements in the record showing bias and unqualified opinions on the merits, which is grounds for disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 641.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Bias and unqualified opinions by the WCJ undermined impartiality and fairness, leading to disqualification.

From the decision · page 10(Report, at p. 4.) No evidence of the above discussion about why applicant could not or did not appear in person is contained in the record. By this Report, the WCJ made himself a witness, which is potentially prohibited under Code of Civil Procedure 641(d). We again emphasize the importance of a record and the importance of complying with the WCAB Rules. For example, we note that with respect to the discussion of a possible Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, such requests and the procedures to obtain such accommodations are not before the WCAB, are not covered by the WCAB Rules, and should not be discussed in the record in any way. In addition, when the WCJ used language discussing applicant’s claimed evidence, it appears to show an unqualified opinion as to the merits of the case and the existence of a state of mind evincing bias. Thus, we will order that the WCJ is disqualified in these cases, and that the presiding WCJ shall separately appoint a new WCJ. 10

Medical-legal reports by Dr. Gupta were alleged by applicant to be altered and fake, but the WCAB did not find evidence to support this and did not credit this claim.

Applicant alleged fraud in Dr. Gupta's reports, but the WCAB did not find this claim substantiated.

From the decision · page 1The WCJ further ordered that “defendant is to withhold 15% of the permanent disability awarded herein for any potential attorney’s fee.” Applicant seems to contend that the cases should not have been submitted for decision on May 1, 2026, discovery should continue to subpoena witnesses, including Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) Pramila Gupta, M.D., and another trial should go forward to expose the allegedly fraudulent actions by the third party administrator and defense attorneys; the medical-legal reports by Dr. Gupta are altered and fake; applicant had an emergency situation on the day of trial, March 26, 2026, and she could not appear; and finally, the WCJ issued his decision without reviewing evidence possibly concerning “amended body part.”

Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4; Lab. Code, §§ 5307, 5500.3, 5708, 5813, 5909; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10330, 10421, 10430, 10510, 10515, 10517, 10617, 10815, 10816, 10817; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 641, 641(d), 641(f), 641(g)

Due process and fair hearing rights under California and United States Constitutions; WCAB Rules on virtual appearances and testimony; Labor Code sections on WCJ authority and disqualification; Code of Civil Procedure section 641 grounds for disqualification.

The WCAB applied these standards to find the WCJ violated due process by denying virtual appearance improperly, proceeding without applicant, and showing bias, leading to disqualification and rescission of the decision.

From the decision · page 5Thus, we conclude that the parties were provided with the notice of transmission required by section 5909(b)(1) because service of the Report in compliance with section 5909(b)(2) provided them with actual notice as to the commencement of the 60-day period on June 18, 2026. II. Turning to the merits, we will first consider applicant’s contention that the WCJ proceeded to trial in her absence. In our en banc decision in Perez v. Chicago Dogs (2025) 90 Cal.Comp.Cases 830 (Appeals Board en banc) (Chicago Dogs), we stated that: In conducting our preliminary review, we observe that in addition to our constitutional mandate to accomplish substantial justice, the following fundamental legal principles must guide us:

Applicant failed to appear at trial and requested virtual appearance, which was denied improperly by an email not signed by the WCJ, violating procedural rules and due process.

From the decision · page 3There is no proof of service attached, and the email is not by or signed by the WCJ. On March 26, 2026, applicant failed to appear at trial. The WCJ issued the Minutes of Hearing and Notice of Intent to Submit (MOH) on April 2, 2026. He stated that: LET THE MINUTES REFLECT that we are proceeding without Applicant present. She did recently request to appear remotely, which was denied by this judge. She notified the Information and Assistance Officer that she would not be attending today’s proceeding. Applicant was aware of the proceedings, and that her request to appear remotely was denied. The trial will proceed today and the court will issue a Notice of Intent to Submit the matter at the conclusion of today’s proceedings.