What the panel ordered
Petition for disqualification granted; assigned WCJ disqualified; case returned to Presiding WCJ for reassignment to a new WCJ.
Petition for disqualification of the assigned WCJ filed by applicant, contested by defendant, and granted by the Appeals Board panel.
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 Appeals Board found an appearance of bias sufficient to warrant disqualification under the objective test of a reasonable person aware of the facts having doubt about the WCJ's impartiality, supported by applicant's allegations and defendant's confirmation.
From the decision · page 2On August 28, 2023, defendant filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) to trial, and a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) was held on February 22, 2024, at which time the matter was set for trial on May 9, 2024. On May 9, 2024, the WCJ issued an Order taking the matter off calendar (OTOC). The Minutes of Hearing (MOH) indicate that both parties and the applicant were present at the trial setting, and the Order indicates it was issued in response to a joint request of the parties to go off calendar for further discovery. (MOH, 5/9/24.) On May 13, 2024, applicant filed a verified petition for disqualification of the trial judge, alleging that the WCJ's actions at the May 9, 2024 hearing demonstrated bias against the applicant as well as expressing an opinion as to the likely outcome of the trial such that he would be deprived of a fair hearing. In the petition, applicant asserts that the WCJ: 1) disclosed that his wife works at Prime Healthcare, of which defendant Sherman Oaks Hospital is a member, thereby disqualifying