What the panel ordered
The Petition for Disqualification is dismissed as moot because the WCJ recused herself.
Defendant filed a Petition for Disqualification of the WCJ alleging conflict of interest; the WCJ recused herself and the matter was reset before another WCJ.
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 WCJ recused herself, rendering the disqualification petition moot.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ has a conflict of interest. Thereafter the WCJ recused herself from these proceedings and the matter was reset before another WCJ. As the WCJ has recused herself, no issue exists regarding disqualification and the petition will be dismissed as moot. To conserve court resources, the Appeals Board would respectfully request that parties seek to withdraw moot petitions as a matter of courtesy.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The WCJ recused herself from the proceedings after the disqualification petition was filed.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This recusal eliminated the conflict of interest issue, making the petition moot.
From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks disqualification of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ has a conflict of interest. Thereafter the WCJ recused herself from these proceedings and the matter was reset before another WCJ. As the WCJ has recused herself, no issue exists regarding disqualification and the petition will be dismissed as moot. To conserve court resources, the Appeals Board would respectfully request that parties seek to withdraw moot petitions as a matter of courtesy.
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.