What the panel ordered
Petition for Disqualification and Petition for Removal are both dismissed.
Applicant filed a Petition for Disqualification and a Petition for Removal after venue was changed to Oakland; both petitions were dismissed.
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 moot because the case was no longer assigned to the San Francisco WCJ after venue was changed to Oakland.
From the decision · page 1On October 31, 2025, the presiding workers' compensation administration law judge (PWCJ) issued an order changing venue of this matter to the Oakland district office. Despite this order, applicant in pro per filed a Petition for Disqualification of the assigned WCJ in the San Francisco district office. In her Report and Recommendation (Report), the San Francisco WCJ explained in relevant part that the issue was now moot because the case was to be transferred to the Oakland district office. As the case is no longer assigned to the San Francisco WCJ, the Petition for Disqualification is moot, and we will dismiss it.
The Petition for Removal was filed more than 30 days after service of the WCJ's orders and was therefore untimely.
From the decision · page 2insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10615(b), 10940(a).) The Petition in this matter was filed on December 1, 2025. This was more than 30 days after the service of the WCJ's orders on September 9, 2025 and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, applicant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600. Thus, we will dismiss the Petition for Removal.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Petition for Removal was filed more than 30 days after service of the WCJ's orders.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This made the petition untimely and required dismissal.
From the decision · page 2insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10615(b), 10940(a).) The Petition in this matter was filed on December 1, 2025. This was more than 30 days after the service of the WCJ's orders on September 9, 2025 and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, applicant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600. Thus, we will dismiss the Petition for Removal.
The case was no longer assigned to the San Francisco WCJ after venue was changed to Oakland.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This rendered the Petition for Disqualification moot.
From the decision · page 1On October 31, 2025, the presiding workers' compensation administration law judge (PWCJ) issued an order changing venue of this matter to the Oakland district office. Despite this order, applicant in pro per filed a Petition for Disqualification of the assigned WCJ in the San Francisco district office. In her Report and Recommendation (Report), the San Francisco WCJ explained in relevant part that the issue was now moot because the case was to be transferred to the Oakland district office. As the case is no longer assigned to the San Francisco WCJ, the Petition for Disqualification is moot, and we will dismiss it.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 10615(b), 10940(a)
A petition for removal must be filed with the WCAB within the time allowed; proof of mailing is insufficient.
The Petition for Removal was filed more than 30 days after service of the WCJ's orders and was therefore untimely.
From the decision · page 2insufficient. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10615(b), 10940(a).) The Petition in this matter was filed on December 1, 2025. This was more than 30 days after the service of the WCJ's orders on September 9, 2025 and beyond whatever extension of time, if any, applicant might have been entitled to under WCAB Rule 10600. Thus, we will dismiss the Petition for Removal.
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.