What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration dismissed; Petition for Disqualification denied.
Applicant filed a Petition for Disqualification on November 25, 2024 and a Petition for Reconsideration on December 6, 2025; the Appeals Board reviewed the petitions and the WCJ's Reports and Recommendation.
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 petition for disqualification was denied because it failed to meet the requirements of WCAB Rule 10960 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, lacked a required affidavit, and was untimely.
From the decision · page 6Here, the petition does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, the request for disqualification is denied.
The petition was dismissed because the applicant was not newly aggrieved and the petition was successive, which is improper.
From the decision · page 5It is improper for applicant to file multiple petitions that attempt to relitigated issues that have already determined against applicant. Accordingly, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The petition for reconsideration was successive and the applicant was not newly aggrieved.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This made the petition improper and led to its dismissal.
From the decision · page 5It is improper for applicant to file multiple petitions that attempt to relitigated issues that have already determined against applicant. Accordingly, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.
The petition for disqualification lacked an affidavit under penalty of perjury and was untimely.
Favours Defendant prevailed
Failure to meet procedural and substantive requirements led to denial of the petition.
From the decision · page 6Here, the petition does not set forth facts, declared under penalty of perjury, that are sufficient to establish disqualification pursuant to Labor Code section 5311, WCAB Rule 10960, and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and/or (g). Accordingly, the request for disqualification is denied.
What the panel did with the medical opinions
The role the physician served, and the weight the opinion carried. Physicians are named here as the decision names them; we do not score them.
Ordered dermatology QME examination which the applicant refused to attend, leading to suspension of benefits.
From the decision · page 3in ADJ3370297 dating from September 8, 2000 was previously settled by a now final Order Approving C&R (OACR) dating from April 16, 2004, and the claim in ADJ794315, for a April 1, 1999 DOI, may have also been settled by C&R, although since the case is so old, there is no copy of a OACR/C&R in EAMS/Filenet in that case. The Applicant has a third claim in ADJ9478722, for what appears to be a cumulative injury alleged through February 5, 2013, to the skin and respiratory system based on claimed exposure to toxic cleaning materials including bleach, against Dad's BBQ, where he worked as a janitor/helper. That claim where The Hartford is the defendant, is pending but seemingly has never been formally resolved. However, an order suspending benefits in that case issued on April 16, 2015, by Presiding Judge Gene Lam, which suspended all benefits until the Applicant attends a dermatology QME examination with Ann Weilepp, M.D., which he apparently refused to do, despite a prior order from Judge Deborah Ross dated December 4, 2014, that he was ordered to attend.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5909
A petition for reconsideration is deemed denied unless acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board (Labor Code section 5909).
The Appeals Board acted timely on the petition within the 60-day period.
From the decision · page 1I. Preliminarily, we note that former Labor Code1 section 5909 provided that a petition for reconsideration was deemed denied unless the Appeals Board acted on the petition within 60 days from the date of filing. (Lab. Code, § 5909.) Effective July 2, 2024, section 5909 was amended to state in relevant part that: (a) A petition for reconsideration is deemed to have been denied by the appeals board unless it is acted upon within 60 days from the date a trial judge transmits a case to the appeals board.
Labor Code section 5311; Code of Civil Procedure section 641; WCAB Rule 10960
A party may seek to disqualify a WCJ upon grounds specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 641 and Labor Code section 5311, supported by an affidavit under penalty of perjury (WCAB Rule 10960).
The petition for disqualification lacked required affidavit and was untimely, thus denied.
From the decision · page 5Labor 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)).
What proof carried it
The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.
Applicant became agitated and argumentative during status conferences, hanging up before conclusion.
From the decision · page 4On the two occasions when the applicant called in on the phone for status conferences on April 24, 2024, and again on December 11, 2024, the Applicant became agitated, became argumentative with raised voice, and he eventually hung up, with the Court and all the other parties still on the line and before the conference was concluded. I note that I am the assigned trial judge in only one of these three cases, ADJ3370297, which was set for expedited hearing before me on November 5, 2024, on Applicant's DOR. I ordered that hearing taken off calendar on November 4, 2024, based on the then recently filed Petition to Disqualify me as WCJ, as reflected in the related Minutes of Hearing of the same date, which were emailed to defense counsel for the Oakland USD, Karlo Nebres, to serve.
Service of the Report and Recommendation provided actual notice to parties of case transmission to Appeals Board.
From the decision · page 2Here, according to the proof of service for the Report and Recommendation by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, the Report was served on January 17, 2025, and the case was transmitted to the Appeals Board on January 17, 2025. Service of the Report and transmission of the case to the Appeals Board occurred on the same day. Thus, 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 January 17, 2025.
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.