ADJ10715642 · July 22, 2026

The petitions lacked substantive verified allegations and failed to show grounds for disqualification or removal. The WCJ's setting of hearing on own motion was proper. No substantial prejudice or irreparable harm shown to justify removal.

From the decision · page 4Defendant, Shimin Xu, has filed multiple petitions seeking both removal and disqualification. Defendant seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon various allegations that the WCJ is biased. 1 Defendant seeks removal from a June 18, 2025 notice of hearing. Defendant argues that a WCJ may not place items on calendar sua sponte and that its petition to dismiss this matter should be summarily granted without a hearing. We have not received an answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification/Removal (Report) recommending that we deny disqualification and removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petitions for Removal and Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ’s Reports. 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 dismiss the petition for disqualification and deny the petition for removal.

Defendant did not provide any substantive affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury supporting disqualification.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Lack of verified factual support led to dismissal of disqualification petition.

From the decision · page 4Defendant, Shimin Xu, has filed multiple petitions seeking both removal and disqualification. Defendant seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon various allegations that the WCJ is biased. 1 Defendant seeks removal from a June 18, 2025 notice of hearing. Defendant argues that a WCJ may not place items on calendar sua sponte and that its petition to dismiss this matter should be summarily granted without a hearing. We have not received an answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification/Removal (Report) recommending that we deny disqualification and removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petitions for Removal and Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ’s Reports. 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 dismiss the petition for disqualification and deny the petition for removal.

Petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Failure to meet high standard for removal led to denial of petition.

From the decision · page 7that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner. Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ’s decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761.) The WCJ set this matter for a hearing on her own motion, which is entirely appropriate.

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, supported by verified detailed facts (WCAB Rule 10960).

Petition for disqualification dismissed for lack of verified detailed facts.

From the decision · page 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.

Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)

Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm is shown, and reconsideration is inadequate (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a)).

Petition for removal denied for failure to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

From the decision · page 6How could it be otherwise? We will not hold that every statement a judge makes to explain his or her reasons for ruling against a party constitutes evidence of judicial bias.”].) Under no circumstances may a party’s unilateral and subjective perception of bias afford a basis for disqualification. (Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017, 1034; Robbins v. Sharp Healthcare (2006) 71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1291, 1310–1311 (Significant Panel Decision).) Here, and based upon the analysis contained in the WCJ’s Report we dismiss the Petition for Disqualification. Defendant has not provided any substantive affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, nor has defendant detailed any grounds for disqualification under the rule. 2. Removal Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate

Defendant failed to provide substantive affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury supporting disqualification.

From the decision · page 4Defendant, Shimin Xu, has filed multiple petitions seeking both removal and disqualification. Defendant seeks disqualification of the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) based upon various allegations that the WCJ is biased. 1 Defendant seeks removal from a June 18, 2025 notice of hearing. Defendant argues that a WCJ may not place items on calendar sua sponte and that its petition to dismiss this matter should be summarily granted without a hearing. We have not received an answer from applicant. The WCJ filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Disqualification/Removal (Report) recommending that we deny disqualification and removal. We have considered the allegations of the Petitions for Removal and Disqualification and the contents of the WCJ’s Reports. 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 dismiss the petition for disqualification and deny the petition for removal.

WCJ properly set hearing on own motion, which is appropriate procedure.

From the decision · page 7that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ’s analysis of the merits of petitioner’s arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner. Decisions of the Appeals Board “must be based on admitted evidence in the record.” (Hamilton v. Lockheed Corporation (Hamilton) (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473, 476 (Appeals Board en banc).) Furthermore, decisions of the Appeals Board must be supported by substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, §§ 5903, 5952(d); Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274 [39 Cal.Comp.Cases 310]; Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500]; LeVesque v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 627 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 16].) An adequate and complete record is necessary to understand the basis for the WCJ’s decision. (Lab. Code, § 5313; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10761.) The WCJ set this matter for a hearing on her own motion, which is entirely appropriate.