Petition for Disqualification of Workers' Compensation Judge. 8 CCR § 10960

What panels did with this rule

Released decisions that named § 10960, with the passage each turned on. A panel decision persuades; it does not bind.

• ADJ19581832 · 2026-10-05 · San Francisco District Office8 CCR § 10960

  Determinative passage · p.4III. 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)). Under 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

  The petition for disqualification did not set forth sufficient facts under penalty of perjury to establish grounds for disqualification, so it was dismissed.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ20154934 · 2026-09-10 · Los Angeles District Office8 CCR § 10960

  Determinative passage · p.2Labor Code 1 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. (§ 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)). Under 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 forth in the statement there is no issue of fact to be determined.” (Mackie v.

  Procedures for filing petitions for disqualification of a WCJ.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ18956084 · 2026-08-25 · San Jose District Office8 CCR § 10960

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ ordered applicant’s matter off calendar in error and failed to set various issues for hearing. We have received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification (Report) recommending that we deny disqualification. We have received a request from applicant to file a supplemental petition, which we grant. (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.) We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits contained in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny disqualification. However, we will treat applicant’s petition as seeking removal of the May 14, 2026, order taking the matter off calendar. We will grant the petition for removal and as our Decision After Removal we will rescind the May 14, 2026 order taking the matter off calendar and order that this matter be set for mandatory settlement conference so that the WCJ may conduct a hearing upon the parties’ various discovery petitions.

  Petition for disqualification denied due to lack of sufficient factual basis and untimeliness.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16741171 · 2026-08-21 · Riverside District Office8 CCR § 10960

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on April 15, 2026, by the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Thereafter on May 21, 2026, the parties jointly requested the matter to proceed off calendar. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition for removal as the issue raised is now moot. To the extent that the petition could have been construed as seeking disqualification of the WCJ, the petition did not comply with WCAB Rule 10960, and thus, we would have otherwise dismissed the petition as one seeking qualification. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10960.)

  Petition did not comply with this rule and would have been dismissed on that basis if construed as seeking disqualification of the WCJ.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13610807 · 2026-08-20 · San Bernardino District Office8 CCR § 10960

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant, Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ has made unqualified opinions as to the merits of the case. We have received an answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification (Report) recommending that we dismiss or deny disqualification. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits contained in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny disqualification. Labor Code 1 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. (§ 5311; see also Code Civ.

  The panel applied these standards to evaluate the petition and found no grounds for disqualification.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10427296 · 2026-08-19 · Van Nuys District Office8 CCR § 10960

  Determinative passage · p.2Under 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 forth in the statement there is no issue of fact to be determined.” (Mackie v.

  Applied to assess the timeliness and sufficiency of the petition

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ19588119 · 2026-08-03 · Long Beach District Office8 CCR § 10960

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon the allegation that the WCJ is biased and prejudiced. We have not received an answer from defendant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification (Report) recommending that we deny disqualification. We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ’s Report. Based on our review of the record and based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits contained in the WCJ’s Report, we will deny disqualification. Labor Code 1 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. (§ 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)). Under 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

  The petition was denied because it failed to show specific facts constituting grounds for disqualification and was untimely.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10715642 · 2026-07-22 · San Jose District Office8 CCR § 10960

  Determinative passage · p.51. Disqualification Labor Code 2 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. (§ 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)). Under 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 forth in the statement there is no issue of fact to be determined.” (Mackie v.

  Petition for disqualification dismissed for lack of verified detailed facts.

  Official decision · page 5 →