What the panel ordered
Petition for Disqualification denied.
Petition for Disqualification filed January 17, 2025, denied by WCAB panel decision on March 12, 2025.
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 did not set forth sufficient facts under penalty of perjury to establish grounds for disqualification under the cited laws and rules.
From the decision · page 1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition for Disqualification.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Petition for Disqualification did not set forth facts under penalty of perjury sufficient to establish grounds for disqualification.
Favours Defendant prevailed
This failure meant the petition could not meet the legal requirements for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311, Code of Civil Procedure section 641, and WCAB Rule 10960.
From the decision · page 3Here, as discussed in the WCJ's report, the Petition for Disqualification 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). Thus, the Petition will be denied.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5311
Labor Code section 5311
Provides grounds for disqualification of a WCJ.
From the decision · page 1Labor 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)).
Code of Civil Procedure section 641
Code of Civil Procedure section 641
Specifies grounds for disqualification including bias or fixed opinion.
From the decision · page 1Labor 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)).
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10960
WCAB Rule 10960
Requires petition for disqualification to be supported by detailed affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury.
From the decision · page 1Under WCAB Rule 10960, proceedings to disqualify a WCJ "shall be initiated by the filing of a petition for disqualification supported by an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury stating in detail facts establishing one or more of the grounds for disqualification...." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960, italics added.) It has long been recognized that "[t]he allegations in a statement charging bias and prejudice of a judge must set forth specifically the facts on which the charge is predicated," that "[a] statement containing nothing but conclusions and setting forth no facts constituting a ground for disqualification may be ignored," and that "[w]here no facts are set
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.